92. We consider that there is no justification
for extending Part 1 of the Bill to include countries that maintain
the death penalty. We therefore recommend that Clause 1(1) be
amended to specify that any country which provides for the death
penalty as a form of punishment is prohibited from being designated
a territory for the purposes of Part 1 of the Bill. If this is
done, then Clause 15 can be deleted from the Bill as otiose.

"...while only federal authorities in the USA
are in a position to give assurances on the international plane,
non-federal criminal law (including, in a good many states, capital
murder) is a state matter, and state courts and governors have
not always been willing to give effect to the wishes of federal
officers in connection with the imposition of the death penalty
in individual cases".[39]

The Joint Committee expressed its hope that the Government
would give an indication of its thinking on this matter, and that
it would indicate particularly the factors relevant to assessing
whether an assurance will be honoured, both generally or in relation
to particular cases or countries.

99. We endorse the comments of the Joint Committee
on Human Rights and urge the Government to give an indication
of how it proposes that the adequacy of a written assurance that
a death sentence will not be imposed or carried out should be
assessed.

101. In respect of both Clauses 3(2)(b) and 5(1),
who constitutes an "appropriate person" is to be specified
in an order made by the Secretary of State (Clauses 3(3) and 5(2)).
Clause 204(6) provides that any orders made under these clauses
are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

102. We are concerned that Clauses 3(3) and 5(2)
currently delegate an extremely broad power for the Secretary
of State to specify an "appropriate person". The Bill
provides no guidance about, or criteria for, who might constitute
an appropriate person. We are particularly concerned given that
any person specified as an appropriate person would be able to
arrest a suspect without being in possession of an existing warrant,
on the basis of a reasonable belief that a warrant will be issued.
On the face of the power delegated by the Bill, the Secretary
of State could specify any person whatsoever as an appropriate
person, including persons outside the UK; such a person would
then be able to exercise an extremely coercive power, the power
of arrest, within UK territory.

103. We asked the Home Office to comment on who the
Government intends to specify as an "appropriate person".
The Home Office responded that it intends that, in the first instance,
officers of HM Customs and Excise should be empowered to arrest
under a Part 1 warrant. The Home Office also commented on a concern
raised during the consultation period on the draft Bill, that
an officer of the category 1 territory where the warrant is issued
could be specified as an appropriate person, by stating that there
are no plans to specify such officers as appropriate persons.[41]

104. We are pleased to hear that the Home Office
intends to specify only officers of HM Customs and Excise as appropriate
persons, and that it is not intended to give powers of arrest
to foreign law-enforcement officials. However, we do not consider
that the Home Office's statements of intent are sufficient guarantee
to ensure that the extremely broad power delegated by Clauses
3(3) and 5(2) is not exercised inappropriately. We consider
that the Bill should explicitly limit the scope of the Secretary
of State's delegated power by defining who may constitute an "appropriate
person". Clearly, officers of HM Customs and Excise could
be so specified; the House should consider whether there are any
other categories of officer whom it may be appropriate to specify.